Same-sex marriage
The issue of gay marriage or the civil union of homosexuals is a topic a great debate in the United States. As more states, such as Massachusettes, grant civil unions and marriages to same-sex couples, opponents of these marriages have grown more outspoken. Earlier this year, Congress debated an amendment that would not allow states to grant marriages to homosexual couples. Gay Marriage Laws Around the World United States In the United States, the decision on whether to allow same-sex marriages has been left to the states. Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages. Vermont and Connecticut allow Civil Unions, while Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia have some spousal-like rights for same-sex couples. Canada Same-sex marriage is currently the law of the land in Canada, following decisions in cases brought before provincial courts, followed by a decision by the Supreme Court, followed by a bill passed in Parliament in 2005 under the government in power at the time. The short summary would be that all court decisions found that denying marriage to same-sex couples would violate rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court's decision invited the government to recognize this concretely with legislation. The bill subsequently did so. Religious concerns were raised during these events. Religious freedoms are protected under the Charter, and some religious groups object to same-sex marriage. These concerns were finessed by the assurance that no religious authority would be required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, if it did not wish to do so. Thus, any same-sex couple may get married, but they might not be able to have their marriage ceremony performed in certain places of worship. The newly-elected government has been promising to re-visit the same-sex marriage issue in Parliament sometime during the fall. Wikipedia has an excellent review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada . United Kingdom Civil Partnerships Placeholder text, to be made more specific, describing the recently introduced institution of Civil Partnership which is open to two individuals of the same sex Switzerland In 2005, 58% of the Swiss people aproved the new law on registrated partnerships (Partnerschaftsgesetz) in a public vote that introduces marriage-like partnerships for same-sex couples. On January 1st, 2007, the law will come into effect. Marriage remains reserved for couples of different sex. The law brings the same rights and responsibilities as marriages, though there are some exceptions: * the family names of the partners remain unchanged, though, in practice, it is allowed to use the partners name instead or in addition even in legal transactions. * the couple is not allowed to adopt children The parlimentary web site on the topic (german and french only): http://www.parlament.ch/homepage/do-archiv/do-partnerschaft.htm Arguments In Favor of Gay Marriage Separation of Church and State Marriage is a legal issue. The state recognizes marriage as a legal partnership in which two individuals enter, and grants them certain rights and privileges that go beyond those which unmarried individuals have. For instance, in the case of the death of one partner in a marriage, even without a will the estate of the deceased is usually automatically willed to the living partner. The definition of Marriage as purely religious is incomplete. This denies the reality of entirely secular marriages performed by Justices of the Peace. It also denies the presence of the many legal benefits afforded to married couples which are denied to un-married ones. In some marriages, the only true religious involvement is the performance of a ceremony to indicate the marriage is recognized by a church. Marriage may have started as a purely religious agreement, but its current reality is much broader. Equality Over 1,100 rights and responsibilities are afforded to heterosexual couples through marriage. Simple rights such as hospital visitation and healthcare coverage are easily available to heterosexual couples through marriage, but unavailable for same-sex couples. Denying same-sex couples marriage essentially creates a group of second-class citizens without access to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Freedom and Individual Liberty The United States was founded on the principles of Freedom, and Personal Liberty. Allowing same-sex marriages would be extending upon GLBT people the freedom to choose a life partner and be respected by the State. A same-sex marriage would not limit the freedom of heterosexual individuals, in any way. Limiting marriage to a heterosexual definition would be limiting the freedoms of a minority group of people. This is the classic example of the ‘tyranny of the majority’, which is the enemy of Democracy. Though some fringe of anti-gay marriage may suggest that marriage is a priviledge provided my the government and not, in fact a freedom, marriage existed long before governments, and it would exist without governments. It is merely a contractual agreement between two people to share their lives, children, and belongings. Whether or not the state exists to enforce this contract or it's merely by mutual recognition of others or private enforcement organizations is irrelevant. In addition, many people would claim that it's a church issue and not a state issue at all. Distorted View of GLBT People and Culture GLBT persons who participate in pride parades and other festivities are often considered to be representative for the entire GLBT community. This makes GLBT people seem extravagant and careless, characteristics which are difficult to unite with a serious marriage. It must be noted, however, many of GLBT people are not eager to express their sexuality. They consider it to be a personal issue. Such people could establish a very robust marriage and be very good at child rearing. These people do not fit a distorted view of GLBT people and are often not considered in debates. This type of discourse I believe forces advocates of GLBT rights into a rather conservative line of argument whereby GLBT people are made to prove their ‘normality’ or ‘respectability’ in order to assert their entitlement to equal rights. Straight people do not have to conform to any particular moral standard or norm in order to be entitled to be married. It is not the ‘sameness’ of GLBT people that should entitle them to marry whomever they please, it is their citizenship and equality as human beings which can not and should not be negated through the participation in parades or celebration of identity and sexuality.--Lampshade 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) The Fallacy of 'Protecting' Traditional Marriage A common tactic used by those opposed to equal rights for GLBT citizens is to claim that they are 'protecting' traditional marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage would in no way limit existing, or future, heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages would be as legal as they are today. Allowing gay marriage would simply mean that more citizens would have access to the rights and protections that are currently only provided to heterosexual couples. Sexual Orientation is Not a Choice Human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. It is a fact of human psychology that, while a person can choose to act or not act on a desire (depending on competing desires), one cannot choose what one desires. If choice of desires were possible, then everyone could choose to desire what they already have, therby fufilling those desires, although this still requires action to be based on the desire to see desires fufilled. It appears logically impossible for sexual orientation to be a choice. Sexual Orientation Is Not Always a Choice Human beings can choose to be either gay or straight, but few decide to choose an orientation. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, some psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. Some believe that sexual choice is as easy for some to make as it is for them to choose what shirt to wear on any given day. It is a fact of human psychology that, while a person can choose to act or not act on a desire (depending on competing desires), one cannot always choose what one desires. Choice of desire is possible for some and impossible for others. Counterpoint This might be irrelevant to "gay marriage" discussion. People can fall in love, have straight or gay sex without getting "married". -- Blackdog 22:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Framing the Argument Many opponents of gay marriage like to describe the argument as a definitional one; they claim that the real issue is how we define the institution of marriage. This argument avoids the real question. As Jon Stewart put it in his debate with conservative Bill Bennett, "I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish." Slippery Slope Argument Conservative opponents of homosexual marriages often make what is known as the slippery slope argument. They argue that if we allow gay marriages, then that is simply the first step towards allowing polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and other sorts of unconventional sexual behaviors. This argument is flawed in many ways. First of all, same sex marriage is intrinsically different in nature from pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality; polygamy is a choice and not a condition, pedophilia involves non adults and is a form of abuse (non consensual), and bestiality is not a union between two consenting parties. This argument is more of a scare tactic than a rational discourse. Besides, the slippery slope argument could go the other way; if we let the government decide who we can marry based on sexual orientation, then what’s to stop them from making income level or race qualifications for marriage? Arguments Against Gay Marriage Natural Order The intrinsically heterosexual nature of mammalian procreation suggests homosexuality is indeed aberrant. As only sex between a man and woman can produce offspring, it is obvious that only that coupling is one accepted by nature. :"It is obvious that only that coupling is the one accepted by nature"? Your argument has a critical flaw... you suggest that it takes a man and a woman to create a child naturally, that is not being debated... however, you say that because there is this requirement of a man and woman to physically produce, homosexuality is not justified naturally as a way to raise the offspring outside of physical production.. Those are two different things. One deals with physical procreation, the other deals with parenting. If you look at the animal kingdom (humans included) there are instances of not only homosexual couples raising the young (quite successfully), but also multiple couples, and even communities all raising and acting as parents to the offspring that are produced. 161.225.1.12 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) While much has been touted about findings that homosexuality is natural, there are studies that indicate different findings, such as the American Psychological Association's "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html. Credible research indicates that sexual orientation is, in fact, a choice, and there are numerous documented cases of individuals choosing to change their sexual orientation. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet5.html :That pamphlet bothers me when it emphasizes that "societies that accept homosexuality have more of it and those that disapprove of and punish it have considerably less of it". This is junk psychology. Societies that disapprove of homosexuality aren't going to have as high of a rate of reporting. And while the behavior may be diminished, the inclinations may remain, repressed in favor of heterosexual impulses, or even in favor of asexuality, even if there is emotional damage. -Jjensenii 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :Counterpoint - Saying that only one is accepted by nature is incorrect. Many species display homosexual mating for life, the most notable example of which are penguinshttp://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp. As high as 15% of male penguins mate for life with another male penguin. These "gay" couples "adopt" and raise the abandoned eggs of other penguins. It seems, then, that nature needs homosexuality. -Ben July 6, 2006 :Countepoint - What is "natural" and how is it even relevant? If by natural you mean that non-human animals do something, then there are many examples of homosexual behavior among animals.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexuality#Homosexual_behavior Since it occurs in the natural world, then that makes it "natural." Being "natural" or "unnatural" does not make something good or bad. For example, Hemlock and viruses are natural, kidney transplants and scissors are unnatural. Arguing if homosexuality is not “natural” does not seem to prove very much. --Schnuerle 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Slippery Slope When discussing the sexual orientation of people, there are myriad possibilities. People can not only be heterosexual or homosexual, but also be pedophiliac or zoophilic for example. Modern psychologists agree that this is also not by choice and definitely not voluntarily changeable. Promoting gay marriage simply because it is not a voluntary choice to be gay would also mean promoting (consensual?) relations between adults and children by the same argument. The involuntariness of homosexuality per se can therefore not be a valid argument and other societal factors have to be taken into account. Religious Imperative The need or otherwise of aligning secular law with the moral code of a majority religion :Counterpoint - Proper separation of church and state, as discussed above, would preclude this, as enforcing the moral code of one religion violates individuals' rights to choose their own religion (or to choose none). --Whosawhatsis 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Argument Against Freedom Argument (see above) While many pro-gay marriage advocates claim that marriage is a freedom, marriage is actually a State issue, not a personal or individual issue. People have the right to do anything they want, but "marriage" would not exist without the state, therefore you can't say that the States take a freedom from the citizens since that's not a "freedom" from the beginning, it's a State sponsored institution. The issue here is discrimination, not freedom, but that's a different discussion. It's incorrect to say that GLBT persons are not "free" to marry, the option doesn't exist, it's like saying that "I'm not free to divorce my girlfriend" (I'm not married), that option to divorce somebody that I'm not married to doesn't exist, however it's not a freedom issue. Government Policy Options States Rights The Constitution nowhere grants the Federal government the power to regulate marriage, so with no amendment whatsoever it is already possible for individual states to do what they want about gay marriage. People who feel threatened by gay marriage are free to live in a state that does not allow it, and people who want it are free to live in a state that allows it. Remove Special Marriage Benefits (civil unions only?) A third possibility supported by a smaller group is the removal of marriage benefits from the law altogether, or rather placing them entirely under the purview of contract law. Marriage would be left as a religious or personal contractual bond between whichever people choose to recognize it, but there would be no state or federal recognition of marriage. Giving of power of attorney and whatever contracts that marriage currently implies could be entered into explicitly by any two people (as they are now). :Note: this is pretty much the same as a civil union. --Kg6cvv 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC) This is probably not a practical option considering the widespread respect and influence that marriage has in our culture, but it may be useful to include in discussion to remember that conferring legal status to marriage is far from inevitable. Our society has decided that we want marriage to have legal status, so we also have to decide how to handle that so as not to confer unfair advantage to certain people. :Are you saying that "our society" cannot change its mind? Isn't that what the political process is all about? And movies have a huge cultural influence as well. Should the government be making movies? --Kg6cvv 21:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::No, that's not what I was trying to say at all. Maybe that second paragraph should go or be reworked. It's pretty editorial. It is my opinion that marriage is too entrenched for people to accept its removal from the law altogether, at least all at once right now, but that's just my opinion. --Munchtipq 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :If someone wants to make a point for gay marriage they have to: :# make a point why there's a need for "marriage" in general :# prove that that need holds if we extend the "marriage" meaning to gay relationships. ::Gay marriage is obviously important to some people, or it would be a non-issue. It's a symbol of commitment, love, and it creaties a tie between the two people, whether it's spiritually, non-sprititually, or both. This isn't the place to discuss the validity of the marriage concept, anyways. --Anphanax 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::I can fully understand that's important for the people involved, however I fail to see why the society (other people) should care about it. -- Blackdog 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ---- C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity discusses marriage, and his argument - which I agree with so am (poorly) reproducing here - is that there should be a distinction made between civil marriages and religious marriages. With high divorce rate as a primary indicator, marriages as implemented by the government today are, in fact, civil marriages. We do not - and can be argued never have - held people to the oath of "till death do us part". In this sense, the religious side is just for show. Lewis asks for a large distinction to be made between religious marriages, specifically Christian, and civil ones. He sees no reason that civil marriages are held up to a Christian standard, and by making this distinction we can not only more effectively separate church and state, but also clarify exactly our intentions when getting married. --Bubaflub 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) A first step in differentiating the two (civil vs. religious marriages) would be naming. Civil marriages could simply be called "civil unions," providing all the legal benefits of marriage, without any religious connotations. --Midian 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Marriage only has "religious connotations" to those who are religious. My marriage was performed by a judge and has no "religious connotations." The whole question of gay marriage is a legal issue. As has repeatedly been stated here, "marriage" is a legal term. In fact, it's a key term in hundreds of legal opinions and statutes. Unless you intend to rewrite the last 200 years of American common law, and hundreds of state and federal statutes, it is impractical to think that simply creating a new term "civil union" can fully embrace the legal rights created by the term "marriage." --Dan robinson 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Civil Unions due to Interstate Commerce Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Unites States Constitution states that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Marriage is a legally recognized union. Given the nature of the accumulation of assets in today's society, there is a clear imperative to establish a universal definition of marriage. Couples who are married in a state that recognizes same sex marriages, but hold assets in one's that do not, would face legal difficulties that were intended to be mitigated by the above clause. Civil Unions between individuals is the only logical step. This would provide adequate protection for heterosexual, homosexual, and platonic couples. Rights By State New York In a 4-2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals said that the state's marriage law is constitutional, and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Judge Robert Smith said, "Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature." Party Platforms United States Democrats We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart. Source: Democratic Party Platform for America, 2004, p. 42 Libertarians From the National Libertarian Party Web Sitehttp://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sexurigh: The Issue: Government has presumed to decide acceptability over sexual practices in personal relationships, imposing a particular code of moral and social values and displacing personal choice in such matters. The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. Solutions: We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. Transitional Action: We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles. Republicans We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America, p. 83 GTL Party From the God, Truth and Love Party Web Sitehttp://www.gtlparty.org In Truth: People can and do fall in love with members of the same sex. Through Love: They are happy and their situation has no detrimental effect on others. They should be allowed to do as they please. Initiative: Legalize gay marriage while guaranteeing religious institutions that they will not have to perform or recognize such marriages. Homosexuality has always existed. It is part of the human condition and has been documented in several species in the animal kingdom. Gays and lesbians experience the range of human emotions as heterosexuals do. They fall in love and wish to express that love through making a lasting commitment. That expression of love and wish to exhibit and celebrate it is no less valid because of their sexual orientation. Same sex couples have suffered many trials and tribulations over the years. Acts of hate and violence against them, overt and covert prejudice, the denial of marital rights, the loss of inheritance from same sex partners, the lack of access to health and other employment benefits normally shared by spouses, and the acceptance by family, friends, and the greater community are all detrimentally affected by the continued denial of equal marriage rights for same sex couples. The United States, formerly a leader in human rights, is lagging behind the world in gay and lesbian rights. The Netherlands, Canada and Spain have all granted marriage rights to same sex couples. Several other countries in Europe are currently studying the matter and are moving swiftly towards the full recognition that sexual orientation between two people who wish to marry should not be a matter that the state can dictate. Perspectives (Share your feedback about this section's format/content on the discussion page!) As a way of starting a deeper conversation around Gay marriage, please post your "Perspective" below. This will give us a clear structure for looking at all the diverse and interesting perspectives we all hold. Each Perspective should be formatted as follows: "I am _______, and I believe _______." EXAMPLE: "I am a gay man, and I believe we should have the right to marry." EXAMPLE: "I am a businessman, and I believe that gay marriage is a source of new money for the economy." EXAMPLE: "I am a Republican, and I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." Let's keep this civil, thoughtful and friendly... and have fun! What's YOUR perspective? Remember to "sign" your comment with four tildes *I'm a 28-year old gay man, and I believe that the rights equated with marriage should be available to all people, so that marriage is just a religious or personal commitment, and the government does not need to be involved at all. :: * I am a heterosexual secular man, and I believe the government should not discriminate in marriages on the basis of gender but should instead endorse long-term social contracts between two people. :: * I am an 18 year old Christian, and I believe that the Biblical definition should stand- that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. :: * I am a 19 year old Christian male, and I believe that it is wrong for the government to make decisions based on any religous organizaton. Thus, I believe that gay marriage should be left up to the people of each state. Personally, I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and I honestly do not see how gay marriage will "erode our christian values" any more than war and bloodshed will. :: * I am a 32 year old married straight agnostic man and I agree 100% with the first two perspectives. In answer to the one about the Biblical definition, I think the Bible stands on its own and does not need the government to endorse or not endorse it. Government should stay out of marriage entirely and the word should be stricken from all government laws. --Kg6cvv 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 19 year old heterosexual Christian college student, and I believe that we should not discriminate against homosexuals. There should be a gay marriage ammendment to the Constitution that makes it universally LEGAL. :: * I am a 20 year old Christian male living in Kansas, and I don't believe in preventing people from getting married by the state, as I see state marriage and religious marriage differently. The state is not a christian theocracy, and the concept of marriage should be handled in a secular manner. The church shouldn't be forced to acknowledge all state marriages as valid to their faith, however (but the church can't invalidate a state marriage). The state should stay out of the church's business, and vice versa. One cannot force everyone to do things his or her way. I see my view as a good comprimise, and i'm hoping others will too. --Anphanax 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 23 year old Christian gay man. I find the importance of marriage being in the eyes of God and your peers not our Leaders. :: *I am a 17 year old male Christian high school student, and I believe that homosexual marriage has no lasting purpose because most committed homosexual relationships last less than 3 years. :: *I am a rational human, and I think that even if homosexual relationships had a higher failure rate it might be due to the intense prejudice against the homosexuals from society and not on their inability to be committed. :: * I am a person. I don't believe in publishing private info online. I also don't believe it's State business to interfere in private lives, marriage is an archaic institution, it should be abolished completely. If people want to swear eternal faith and bliss to each other is only their own business. -- Blackdog 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 20 year old male college student, and I believe that the point here is not trying to classify what the word "marriage" means, since this will just show a single person's opinion. "Gay Marriage" cannot be put to the term just as simple as looking at same sex people marrying. It's a simple matter of equal rights. -- Quetzalcoatl 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a male American, and I believe that statistics should be left out of this (for both sides), as there are few ways to verify them, and most statistics are twisted, anyway. Futhurmore, I believe that gay marriage should be left completely up to religious organizations and not up to the government at all, and that the government should only be able to grant civil unions, which give any number of people legal rights regarding other members of the same group. This way, no one's religious beliefs should be offended, and any people who trust each other enough to give them rights over their own life can give these rights freely. -- Kimastergeorge 23:00, 6 July 2006 :: * I am a 15 year old gay male, and my worst fear in life is that I will die alone, with no one to grow old with. :: * I am a Libertarian. It is time for the government to stop abusing the word marriage. If we must recognize two people making a commitment to each other, then call it a civil union, or something else. The state has co-opted a religious rite, and the religious, including myself should be more offended. Discussion *According to some of the leading GLBT rights groups and human rights groups I have talked to, the issue is not "gay" marriage versus "straight" marriage. What they are trying to gain is equal marriage. The goal is to make loving, monogamous marriage accessible to all consenting adults. Now, they argue, we have a system that is deliberately denying equality to GLBT people. -- Tumblingwall 22:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: Category:Civil rights